Peter Moulder wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 02:37:22AM +0200, Anton Prowse wrote:
> - There is no glossary to say what a "float" is (even in conform.html), and
> no index entry for "float".
>
> - If one searches the text for "float is" (with or without any sort of
> quotation mark after float) to find a definition of float,
> then the only definition is the first sentence of §9.5 ‘Floats’:
>
> A float is a box that is shifted to the left or right on the
> current line.
>
> If this is indeed read as a definition, then it is a wrong one: that
> description would also apply to position:relative boxes or conceivably even
> boxes affected by margins. Conversely, floats don't always stay on the
> current line, and aren't always shifted at all relative to where the box
> would be if it weren't floated.
>
Indeed, there are various editorial problems with the float model in
CSS21. See [1] for a few more.
> An element is said to be /positioned/ if its 'position' property has a
> value other than 'static'. Positioned elements generate positioned boxes,
> laid out according to four properties: ...
>
> I suggest changing the first sentence to say
>
> A box or element is said to be /positioned/ iff its 'position' property
> has a computed value other than 'static'.
> I say "unnecessary", though that assumes that the reader somehow knows that a
> box's properties are the computed values of the corresponding properties of the
> element that generates that box. It is a well-known long-standing issue that
> no part of CSS2.1 actually says this though, and I've just noticed that there's
> no issue open for it in http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1.
> Please add an issue for this.
Alas, element vs box is well known to be a can of worms as the spec
currently stands. :-/
>>> b) Layer 6 in edit 3 contains a with-phrase ("with stack level 0")
>>> that is ambiguous. The sentence can mean
>>>
>>> [positioned descendants and stacking contexts] with stack level 0
>>> or
>>> [positioned descendants] and [stacking contexts with stack level 0]
>>>
>>> It means the former, but that requires considerable thinking: one
>>> tends to overlook that stack level zero includes elements with
>>> 'z-index: auto'.
>> One shouldn't do; the proposed definition of the 'auto' value of
>> 'z-index' in Edit 1 (which you said was OK) says:
>>
>> "The stack level of the generated box in the current stacking context is
>> '0'"
> How about
>
> 6. those positioned descendants and stacking contexts whose
> stack level is 0.
>
> (That may still be a bit subtle for people not native speakers of English,
> because it assumes that the reader knows that *"those positioned descendents"
> by itself would be stylistically wrong (wrong formality) in this sort of
> document.)
It's a concern, certainly. Still, I like your proposed wording.
> I purposely removed the quotation marks from the 0, which I think also
> helps to be more inclusive of the z-index:auto case.
Good catch. Those quotes shouldn't be there.
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Mar/0366.html
Cheers,
Anton Prowse
http://dev.moonhenge.net